Talk:Northern Illinois University/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Image copyright problem with Image:NIU Huskies.gif

The image Image:NIU Huskies.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan sentence

The following sentence is currently located in the "Departmental rankings" section: The NIU School of Theatre and Dance has a unique relationship with the Moscow Art Theatre School. Graduate students spend a month training in Moscow, while the undergraduates participate in a semester-long program. This obviously has nothing to do with rankings, yet I think it is something noteworthy and suitable for inclusion in the article. But I can't figure out where. Any ideas? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping it current

I can't understand how sentences like this

  • For the last ten years, U.S. News & World Report has ranked the Northern Illinois University College of Business as among the best business colleges in the country. In 2006, the NIU College of Business continued to be ranked as among the nation's best by making the listing of "America's Best Colleges and Programs" (2007).

can survive. I mean, when did this supposed ten year period begin? Is this current or dated? Someone who knows the dates needs to change it to something like this:

  • Since 1997, U.S. News & World Report has ranked the Northern Illinois University College of Business as among the best business colleges in the country. In 2006, the NIU College of Business continued to be ranked as among the nation's best by making the listing of "America's Best Colleges and Programs" (2007).

Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've waited nearly two years, and no one ever corrected the above, so I've made a change. But I'm just guessing, and I still wish someone knowledgeable would come in and fix it and cite it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in US News ranking methodology

I'm going to have to revert a good faith edit here, and want to explain, since it will no doubt be confusing.

The US News rankings have become, for better or worse, a major source for many people wanting to learn about the quality of a university or college. I think that it is something that people come here looking for, and I therefore think it belongs in the article.

Unfortunately, one needs to pay attention, because they make changes in their methodology from time to time. This year there was a big change which caused someone (quite understandably) to jump the gun. Our beloved NIU, which has trudged in the bottom quartile (Tier 4) every year that I have checked the rankings, this year is listed as Tier 2! Looks great, right? Instead of being ranked in the bottom 25% of National Universities, it looks like we are now in the top half. I was immediately suspicious of this, because I have never seen a school jump two tiers in a single year. I have been patiently waiting for our administration to get off their asses and do something to make us proud and get us at least up to Tier 3, and so this was amazing news.

Well, it's just not so. Are we now in Tier 2? Yes. But guess what? US News is no longer dividing the National Universities into four tiers, they're just divided in two tiers. But wait--it gets worse. According to US News's FAQ explanation of their new rankings:

The schools in the bottom 25 percent of each group are listed alphabetically as the Second Tier; which was previously called the Fourth Tier. This means that we have eliminated the Third Tier from the rankings

So guess what, we haven't moved one bit (and, for the record, I'd like to see the entire Board of Trustees fired by Governor Quinn and replaced by someone who gives a shit), despite the change in label.

Some people have tried to whitewash this in the past. But this is a major part of the image of American universities today, and we need to get it together. Take a look at some of the schools ranked with us. This is Wikipedia, so I won't be rude and mention any names, but I know that I'm not happy.

One more thing, for those new to such things: None of this takes away the fact that NIU is still a major university. There are loads of other four-year colleges (including EIU and WIU in our own state) that aren't even good enough to make the cut and be classified as a "National University". So there's nothing for us to be embarrassed about, but there is something greater for us to aspire to. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Boosterism

I don't care how much we may love NIU, if we try to pack the article full of boosterism, it only embarrasses us.HuskyHuskie (talk)

My updates are not an attempt at boosterism; they are an attempt to bring a sorely out-of-date entry up-to-date with the latest information about Northern Illinois University. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan

Opening Sentence

POV description of NIU’s location

  • Located in one of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the country.
Are you serious? How do we justify a statement like that--and in the second sentence of the article, for pete's sake?HuskyHuskie (talk)
"We" justify a statement like that by noting that NIU is just 60 miles west of Chicago Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
I'm not talking about the location. I'm talking about the POV statement that NIU inhabits "one of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the country". That's unsourced blatant POV. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper use of the opening sentence

But, as long as you're mentioning the location "60 miles west of Chicago", you need to read WP:LEAD, which recommends that notability of the subject be established in the first sentence. As the example they give of this, they give the following:
Amalie Emmy Noether was a German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and her contributions to theoretical physics.
We would not write:
Amalie Emmy Noether was a German mathematician born in 1882.
The second example simply fails to meet the obligation to make the best use of the opening sentence. Similarly, starting the article by noting that NIU is 60 (or 65) miles west of Chicago tells us almost nothing significant. It is far more significant that it is the second largest university in Illinois. Anyone can look at a map of NIU and tell it's location, but the fact that it is THE major university in the northern half of the state is not so obvious, and noting this makes for a better start of the article. Here's another way to think about it: Look at the following possible opening sentences for real Wikipedia articles:
  • Ellwood House is a private house located 65 miles west of Chicago.
  • Joseph Glidden was an American farmer who lived 65 miles west of Chicago.
  • Barbed wire is a type of fencing wire that was invented 65 miles west of Chicago.
  • Isaac L. Ellwood was the owner of a hardware store located 65 miles west of Chicago.
Looks silly, doesn't it? But we could start every single article about anything in DeKalb the same way. Most good writers are likely to recognize that if an opening sentence can be used equally well for any number of essays or articles, it probably isn't a very strong or desireable opening sentence.HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It does look silly, but that's because Ellwood House, Joseph Glidden, Barbed wire, and Isaac L. Ellwood are not a major public university in northern Illinois. By stating that the university is 65 miles west of Chicago, it gives the reader the context of location. "Northern" Illinois could mean Freeport or Rockford, but "65 miles west of Chicago" means that for anyone in the suburbs, it's a relatively short drive to out to NIU. It also means that for any student at NIU, there might be some pretty good job and internship opportunities in the Chicagoland area. Readers shouldn't have to look at a map to tell it's location. I don't have a problem saying that NIU is the second largest university in Illinois, but it's the fact that you insist on mentioning the University of Illinois in that opening sentence. This is a page about NIU. Also, your backhanded "Most good writers ... " comment is rude.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It does look silly, but that's because Ellwood House, Joseph Glidden, Barbed wire, and Isaac L. Ellwood are not a major public university in northern Illinois. That is completely circular reasoning, and it makes me wonder if you understand that people often make their point by analogy. The point was and remains that if the context that you provide in the opening sentence would serve equally well for countless other articles, then it really doesn’t provide much valuable context at all. Besides, who are you to say that NIU’s location relative to Chicago is more important than providing Ellwood House’s location relative to Chicago? One could easily argue that, as NIU is much more well known than Ellwood House, that the latter’s location relative to Chicago is more needed in the article. But that’s really a very minor point; the primary point here is that the opening sentence should, according to WP:LEAD, provide useful context. Does your 65 miles west obervation provide context? Yes, but it’s very weak, since it could be used for so many other articles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Additionally, your observation about the location relative to Chicago . . . means that for any student at NIU, there might be some pretty good job and internship opportunities in the Chicagoland area.. That's called OR. I'm sure to you it appears to be common sense, but it's the kind of speculative boast that we expect NIU to put on its own website, but which Wikipedia cannot place in its articles.HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem saying that NIU is the second largest university in Illinois, but it's the fact that you insist on mentioning the University of Illinois in that opening sentence. I have two reasons why I disagree with you about the inclusion of UIUC; 1) one based upon Wikipedia (and encyclopedic practice, in general), and 2) the other based upon my own personal experiences I can hear it now--"there's no place in Wikipedia for personal experience!", but I'm not talking about my personal experience in the article, I'm merely using it to illustrate a point. Give me a moment, in a moment._ Let me explain each separately:
1.It is entirely common and proper to begin articles with such-and-such is the second largest; only so-and-so is larger. The following are just a few of literally thousands of examples I could use of articles that do what you object to. These are all the first sentence of the current versions of their respective articles:
  • Los Angeles is the most populous city in California and the second most populous in the United States, after New York City[1]
  • Argentina, officially the Argentine Republic, is the second largest country in South America, after Brazil.[2]
  • Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous continent, after Asia.[3]
  • K2 is the second-highest mountain on Earth after Mount Everest. [4]
  • The basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) is the second largest living shark, after the whale shark.[5]
These articles are not about New York City, Brazil, Asia, Mt. Everest, or the whale shark, yet those are all mentioned in their opening sentence. This is because doing so provides some valuable context.
2.Secondly, I have found over the years, traveling around the country, if a state has a "University of Foobar" and a "Foobar State University", there is a fairly widespread assumption on the part of many people that these are the two largest public universities in the state. In most cases, this is probably true (Michigan, Michigan State) or was true in the past (Florida, Florida State). But in Illinois, if this was ever true, it hasn't been true in probably 50-100 years. I can't tell you how often I have heard people assume that my wife, who attended Illinois State, attended one of the two largest and most prestigious schools in the state, which is just bullshit. So I've rather liked that this article has, for a while, pointed out something that is not only rather notable, but is also not likely to be known. Of course, there's just one problem with this, as you point out next . . . HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, you are wrong about NIU being the second-largest university in Illinois, it's the third. Both UIUC and UIC have larger enrollments than NIU.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making that correction. But the way you make your point (saying, "you are wrong") makes me wonder if you understand that I have not written this article. Indeed, over 500 editors (assuming the anons are all different, which I admit, is not really all that likely) have contributed to this article, and that particular fact was not my contribution. All I’ve done is continue to include it—I’ve never claimed to fact check the entire article; we rely on each other, all well intentioned editors, like yourself, to keep things straight. (And I don’t mean to criticize the editor who added that; it was three years ago, and for all I know, it was accurate at the time.)HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Carnegie designation vs. Size

  • NIU is one of only four public universities in Illinois to be designated a high research activity institution by the prestigious Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Oh my god. How many public universities are there in Illinois? Eleven, if you count UIS (which hardly fits in the same category as NIU, so I won't count it). So this means that 36-40% of all the public universities are so designated. Not really a very exclusive group, is it? Certainly nothing to brag about (not that we should be bragging at all).HuskyHuskie (talk)
Not bragging ... just a valid point. It is important to note that NIU has that designation. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
Is it true? Sure. Is it “valid”, or "important to note"? Well, besides the issue of whether it rises to the point of adequate significance to include in the lead, there is the point that it may be perceived as deceptive. Why? Saying “one of only four” implies exclusivity. Four out of a thousand would certainly be "exclusive" enough to mention. Maybe even four out of 100. But is four out of eleven “exclusive”? I grant you that it’s a matter of opinion, and that honest people can disagree on it. But it’s certainly less exclusive than noting that it is one of the two largest universities in the state out of of—how many universities are there in Illinois? At least 50. It seems to me to make more sense to make the reference to it being in the top 5% of universities by size than the fact that it is in the top 37% of universities in terms of membership in the Carnegie categorization. Which, I might add, has been given the POV label “prestigious” Carnegie Foundation, another thing that needs to be corrected (or supported with objective sources).HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You're babbling about semantics. I'll remove the "prestigious" label.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
We are not playing a game of marbles or building a kite. We are writing, and writing an encyclopedia, at that. Semantics is not something to dismiss, it's one of the most crucial elements of our product. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

NIU "leads the way"

  • NIU faculty and students now lead the way in cutting edge research and exceptional hands-on learning opportunities in programs nationally accredited for meeting the highest standards of academic quality, including those in business, engineering and engineering technology, chemistry, nursing, law, visual and performing arts and teacher certification.
Is anyone else embarrassed by this raw boosterism? NIU "leads the way"? Do you suppose they recognize this fact in Champaign, let alone Boston? This is simply ridiculous.HuskyHuskie (talk)

NIU’s proximity to Chicago culture

  • NIU’s proximity and connections to the Chicago metropolitan area afford enhanced academic, professional, service and cultural opportunities.
Well, this is less offensive than the rest of the stuff I've seen so far. But it bugs me, because I've seen this sort of claim before, and--speaking only for myself--I never found it particularly easy to pop over from DeKalb to downtown Chicago for enhanced "cultural opportunities". Basically garbage.HuskyHuskie (talk)
Your opinion only; not helpful, nor does it respect the talk page guidelines 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
I'm not sure how my comment violates talk page guidelines, but if what I said was offensive, I apologize, and I await correction and edification.HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It was offensive because you called my writing garbage. Also not sure how can you say that it's not easy to "pop over from DeKalb to downtown Chicago." It's 20 minutes to the Elburn Metra Station.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and then from there it's another hour to get anywhere! Hey, I think we can probably agree this is just a matter of perspective. Look I'm from Aurora, and even from there I didn't consider it to be a quick pop to downtown. Hell, one of the transformational moments of my life occurred in the early 70s when we finally got a White Castle all the way out in the boonies of Aurora (at Lake St. and Indian Trail), allowing us to finally get our favorite Friday night feast without the hassle of going in to the city. I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but to me, living in DeKalb is not much different--in terms of cultural access--than living in Dixon or Streator. Well, actually, that's not true, because at NIU itself there's more going on than in the real small towns. But to me, a trip into Chicago constituted an expedition.HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

US News rankings and categorization

"Elite" National University category?

  • U.S. News & World Report ranks NIU in its elite “National Universities” category.
This is actually something that I added to the article a few years back. But then another editor pointed out that it is wrong to consider the National University category to be the most elite or prestigious, as there are a great many small liberal arts colleges that are generally considered more prestigious than many "National Universities". Best not to include this, I now realize.HuskyHuskie (talk)
That's your opinion. We can omit the word "elite" but it is worth mentioning that NIU is ranked in that category. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
I have not only agreed to mentioning that it was in that category, I believe I'm the first one to have ever noted that fact. My (mild) objection was to the word "elite", which I see with your edits you restored, despite your comment above; I'm sure it was an oversight, I assume you meant to do it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

US News rankings over the years

  • Recent contributors to this article have taken pains to include the assessment of all kinds of organizations' take on NIU, yet (not so) curiously they have removed the single most prominent ranking from the article: US News. Universities across the country bend over backward to try to improve their US News rankings, because they believe it to be the one that most people pay attention to. Yet this is deleted from our school's article. Hmmmm. I wonder why. Given the fact that some of the above writing is the same as the current university's website has, maybe someone in the administration has opened a Wikipedia account? HuskyHuskie (talk)
I intend to provide updated rankings information. The other rankings were out of date. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
Sorry, but that explanation indicates that you did not look carefully at all the sources. The most recent (2011) rankings were already included; the older ones that were also included were there to back up the statement that NIU's stature in the US News rankings has not altered appreciably for many years. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

North Central Association Accreditation

  • NIU is also accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Big hairy deal. Same thing can be said of every other university in the Midwest. Probably not worthy of inclusion in the article, but definitely not worthy of inclusion in the lead section.HuskyHuskie (talk)
Your opinion only, which seems to be particularly negative. I believe this detail should be included. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
Perhaps it should be included somewhere in the article, in the event that someone somehow came to the conclusion that NIU was the only one of Illinois' 50+ universities not to be so accredited by the North Central Association. But no, it does not belong in the lead.
And for the record, I resent the insinuation that my attitude is negative. I doubt many editors have as longstanding or as fond a connection to NIU as have I; I started using the NIU facilities when I was in high school which was long before the average Wikipedia editors was born, and no one has spent more time trying to improve this article than I have. You mistake my passion for objectivity (the irony is intentional) for negativity; to me your passion for positivity comes across as boosterism, and I think most other readers will see it that way as well. If it looks like we are trying to make NIU look 100% wonderful with no blemishes whatsoever, it makes us look to the rest of the country like country bumpkins. I take you at your word that you really love NIU like the other editors here, and I ask you to help us create the highest quality article, not just a piece of university propaganda, which will ultimately do more to enhance our reputation. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NIU satellite status

  • The removal of the statement that NIU started as a satellite of ISNU. This was something that I was told on my very first tour at NIU back in the 1970s. I have always assumed it to be true. I must admit, however, that I can not find anything that supports the statement, so perhaps it is one of those things that I have just mistakenly believed for decades. I think that the statement at the beginning of the history section: Northern Illinois University was founded . . . as part of the expansion of the normal school program established in 1857 in Normal, Illinois. is pretty good, however, and the research I have done does support this.HuskyHuskie (talk)

Academics Section

  • The Academics section is just unreadable now. It needed expansion, but not like this.HuskyHuskie (talk)
Wikipedia is a community effort, and I have the right to make updates and corrections to this page just as you do. Huskiesfan (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)huskiefan
Yes you do. But they need to take into consideration Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV, which several of your edits clearly did not. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start making some fixes to this, but I'm not sure how much I can do right now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good faith non-edit warring

I feel I would be more than justified in returning this article--at least the lead section--to the way I last left it. But instead of doing that, I've only made a couple of edits which I believe will be non-controversial. I want to make it clear that having not made more extensive changes does not constitute an acceptance on my part of the article's current state. I simply wish to first have a chance to discuss things and work it all out peaceably.HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made several contributions to this page that make it better than the way you last left it. The additional information on academics, student life, the residence halls and university presidents expands and improves the scope of this article. You do not own this article, and you have to be willing to let others contribute to it.Huskiesfan (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree you've made some good contributions to the article, and I think you'll find that most of what you just mentioned I have left untouched. I think adding the list of Presidents was a good thing, and I am particularly impressed by the time you spent on the residence halls. I was a bit puzzled by this edit, but did not change it because I wanted to talk to you about it first (my question has to do with the deletion of the off-campus section, and why you thought it necessary). I would not have removed the section header as you did here for Greek Life, but the way you organized it, while different than what I would have done, was perfectly acceptable per all guidelines. This edit, like this one, added much good information to the article, though eventually I would like them better crafted as paragraphs (right now, they seem to exist in a netherworld between prose and bulleted lists). But not being perfect right away is not critical--it's good to get the information in there.
No, I think you need to acknowledge that in fact, I have not been guilty of trying to own this article, and that the vast majority of your work I've left untouched. And really, over the years, I've not contributed all that much to the content, since most of it was here when I first came to Wikipedia. In terms of your edits, most of the changes I've made have been stylistic in nature. You've added things that no loyal Huskie would take issue with, but things nevertheless which did not belong in Wikipedia. I have no idea how much experience you've had on Wikipedia, but I truly believe that 90% of all editors would agree that many of your contributions were examples of peacock words.HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness and Giving Credit

Above, you make the following comments:

  • Also, your backhanded "Most good writers ... " comment is rude.
  • It was offensive because you called my writing garbage.

Okay, I suppose, if you want to do so, you can take offense at these things. But if your skin isn't any thicker than that, you're not going to make it around here. Sure, there are lots of editors who would take those words and turn them into a charge of personal attack. (Some would call this sentence a "personal attack": You're babbling about semantics.) But I think we need to assume good faith and try to work it out, unless the attack is clearly intended to be hurtful or personal. I'm sorry that you took those comments personally; that was not my intent. But it is inevitable that we will ALL have our writing criticized, if we choose to edit.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that you are a serious individual who seeks to be a genuine contributor. The fact that you have not restored all of your edits, (for example, that line about "one of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the country"), shows me that you are seeking to improve both this article and your own writing, as well as the fact that you are willing to learn from others.

One thing that would have helped me see this earlier would have been if you had provided some outward acknowledgement that you were seeing the validity of other points of view besides your own. For example, I made a point of acknowledging that you were correct about the supposed satellite status of NIU. I acknowledged your findings about its size rankings. In other words, I've let you know at every step whenever you've made a point that has moved my position. We have been at conflict over a fairly large number of (small) issues, and I'm seeking to let you know when you've successfully persuaded me of your correctness on one point or another, which serves two purposes: To acknowledge that we no longer need to discuss that subject, and to let you know that I've listened to you and have been persuaded by you, which shows that I recognize your worth as an editor. Now perhaps you feel I have no such value, though I'm guessing that, on some of the points above to which you have not responded, perhaps you do see my point. Of course, even if you do, you have no obligation to acknowledge it on this page as I am recommending. But after several years of editing, I've found that this practice helps lubricate conflicts between editors and helps us to reach resolution. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Waiting

I really want to be civil and discuss this before making any changes, but in another week I'm going to take your silence as consent to make some changes. If you are just not replying because you're happy with the current state of the article, don't presume my patience is infinite. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you waiting for me to respond to? I'm happy with the current state of the article. My next task will be finding some new photographs to include in the article. Huskiesfan (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you see, HF, civil editors on Wikipedia discuss their differences of opinion on the talk page in an attempt to reach consensus. Uncivil editors simply engage in reverting back and forth. I am not happy with the current state of the article, a point I've made repeatedly in the comments above, yet I chose to remain civil and hold off on my changes[6] pending our talk here on this page. What was I waiting for you to respond to? My thorough replies to your comments.
If you do not wish to handle this through a discussion with me, I'd be happy to get some neutral parties in here, whom I'm quite sure would agree that your attempts to turn this into a sugar-coated piece of puffery are not in keeping with Wikipedia practice. I could have done this earlier, but again, as I've said, I've wanted to be civil. Civility includes demonstrating good faith in discussions. I've started these discussions and proceeded with exemplary good faith, but have yet to see any indications that you have done the same. And that's all I'm asking for at this time.
My good faith is even all the more extraordinary since many editors in this situation would simply apply qui tacet consentire, by which I would be deemed to have reasonable grounds to proceed and make the changes I desire. I won't belabor any longer the generosity that I've shown here, but I will tell you that I'm not going to allow you to ignore standard Wikipedia practices. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am more than willing to resolve this amicably. Would you please post what you propose the opening section should read? Thanks. Huskiesfan (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That's an excellent approach to suggest. Unfortunately, I only stepped in for a moment to touch on a matter that came up in conversation here at home. I probably won't be back for any significant length of time until next weekend. In the meantime, as you said, you're happy with the current state of the article, so I trust you won't mind waiting for my reply, right? Talk to you in another week, hopefully. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Talk to you then! Huskiesfan (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ended up only having a one-day weekend this week--time enough for little edits, but not enough time for something major like this. I'll try again next week to get to this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Huskiesfan, that it's taken me so long to get to this. Please take a look at my proposed opening section here. And do be sure to read my explanatory comments found above that section. Look forward to hearing from you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Which rankings?

As an unbiased editor with no connection to NIU, might I suggest a compromise? Most schools include some type of ranking/recognition in the lead. But it's important to just keep it to one or two of the recognitions you think are the most prestigious. In my opinion, I really like the Carnegie Foundation and the Universities Research Association/Fermi info as they show NIU's relevance in academia while adding great forks to other articles. The other rankings such as being a "National University" and misc rankings, I think, belong in the ranking section below. Hope this helps. -- Iksnyrk (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Iksnyrk, for your neutral suggestion. I must first of all say that I agree that such listings of rankings be kept to a minimum. Some schools, such as this one heap on every positive accolade they can find, yet somehow, nothing negative ever gets mentioned. I think one listing is a good idea, and two should be an absolute maximum. Secondly, I agree that placing NIU's connection with the Universities Research Association is a solid idea. Not because the URA is prestigious (though it certainly is), but because, as you say, it provides a great angle to lead to other writing here on Wikipedia. The URA angle provides something special about the school (thus setting it apart, as a lead section should do) and yet is not flowery verbiage (such as NIU faculty and students now lead the way in cutting edge research and exceptional hands-on learning opportunities in programs nationally accredited for meeting the highest standards of academic quality, which another editor recently added, along with other empty accolades).
Iksnyrk, where I think I may disagree with you (and I say it that way because I'm not sure I correctly understand what you were saying), is that the recognitions should be the ones that "are the most prestigious". I think you're saying that you mean the rankings that lend the most prestige to the university. This I cannot agree with, as it means taking a POV stance in the article. Again, if I misunderstand you, please, feel free to clarify.
So what do I think should be included? From my perspective, there is little doubt as to which is the ranking to include: US News rankings. They are far from perfect, and if it were up to me, I'd like to go back in a time machine and put the person who invented them into a leaky barrel and toss it into the Fox River. So, if they are so imperfect, why do I think they should be included?
  1. They are the oldest rankings, more or less continuous for nearly 30 years. This is valuable because it allows one to examine how a university has risen or fallen in the rankings over a period of decades. The Washington Monthly rankings, which appear to be growing in popularity, have only been published since 2005, and the Forbes rankings since 2008.
  2. They allow for some type of comparison between all four-year schools, which is what people expect from "rankings". Many other rankings, such as the CMUP, are not comprehensive, and look only at a small fraction of American universities, hampering comparisons. And the Carnegie classification--which I readily acknowledge is highly prestigious--is just that--a classification system, rather than a ranking of schools.
  3. But the most important reason to use the US News rankings is because Wikipedia is not supposed to create what we think is best, but to reflect what is really out there. And what is out there is this: The US News rankings utterly dominate the discussion of university evaluation today, both in public conversation, and behind the doors of university administrations around the US. If you are not aware of the incredible influence these rankings have come to have, just read this for a sampling:
  • The universities themselves are bending over backwards to do everything they can to move up in the US News rankings.
  • Colleges literally include their US News rankings in their own improvement plans.
  • College presidents have been hired with US News rankings as part of their hiring agreements.
  • And the US News rankings have more impact on student applications than any other.
In other words, as has been said elsewhere, the US News rankings are the "granddaddy" of all rankings.[7]
Now this fact does not make me happy. I feel the US News rankings have become too powerful, and they are significantly flawed. But it is not my choice, as a Wikipedia editor, to censor out that which makes me uncomfortable and unhappy. These US News rankings have become impossible to ignore. The only reason to leave them out that I can see is if we are unhappy with our current standing, and if we were to leave them out for this reason, then we are guilty of blatant POV, so I can't endorse their exclusion. I know I'm not happy about our position. But putting the best possible face forward is not Wikipedia's job--it's the job of the NIU recruitment public relations office. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Academic rankings
National
Forbes[1]565
Washington Monthly[2]126
I guess I should have used the word notable rather than prestigious. As in, the most notable rankings should be included in the lead while the rest (majority) can be included in a rankings section with this infobox like this: Iksnyrk (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you make that infobox? I like it!
Okay, so it looks like we agree--the intro should have one or no more than two rankings/qualifications, without an attempt to aggrandize the university with puffery or selective rankings. Am I correct? HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No, sadly, I can't take credit for it. I found it at Category:WikiProject Universities templates ... they also have a couple other cool infoboxes that can be useful. As far as the lead paragraph goes, I think the second paragraph is unnecessary. Those specific accolades should probably be moved into the rankings section. If NIU only had two good programs, I wouldn't have that big of a problem with it. But since NIU has about 5 more top 100 USNEWS grad programs (that aren't listed in this article), it would probably be best to put them all in a separate area. -- Iksnyrk (talk)
Okay, so you would suggest that in the lead section, we include only the overall US News ranking within National Universities, and then list our best programs later in the article. Is that correct? And fill out the infobox and place it in the lower section too, with the other program specific accolades, right? HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
NIU has posted an updated Rankings page: http://www.niu.edu/about/rankings/ in case this helps in your discussion. Huskiesfan (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would double-check any of those before you use them. It says, U.S. News & World Report ranks NIU in its elite "National Universities" category; NIU is ranked third in Illinois in the magazine's High School Counselor Rankings of National Universities. but I checked the 2010 counselor national university rankings on the USNEWS website, and it was outranked by Northwestern (13), University of Chicago (19), UIUC (58), Depaul (74), Loyola (74), IIT (98), and UIC (98). Perhaps they meant public national university. Downthatroad (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I just looked at that page. Don't know what it looked like three weeks ago, but I must admit, some of it kinda embarrasses me a bit to see how they've tried to make things look. For example, they have a header which reads, 'Ranked in the Top 100 Universities, but then you find that they're ranked in the top 100 only in the three categories of social mobility, research, and service. Hey, I'll take that "research" ranking and include it in the article, because it's both prestigious and significant. But being one of the top 100 universities that are "encouraging students to give something back to their country"? Sorry, that's weak. And what you said DTR, about the counselor rankings? I see what you're saying, and you're correct, but I'm going to assume good faith by our people at NIU and think that they unintentionally left out the word "public". HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt any of the oversights reflect accurately on the university, it was probably done by people contracted to market it; it's not like it is a 'president's message' or anything. My point is just to double check the facts on the page before using them, because they apparently don't have editors doing it for you like you may expect. Downthatroad (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A very good point. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude! We're getting a new logo! And it's great! Not a rejection of the old, but rather, a moderinization of it. Here's the scoop: Northern Illinois University unveils new logo.

Now I need some HELP. You see, I know nothing about images, or commons, or fair use policy, or any of that stuff. Can someone who knows about this stuff get the new logo uploaded and available for the article on our great university? Thanks! HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More information here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

New lead section proposal

As User:Huskiesfan (a single purpose user) has had a rather different perspective on the lead section than any found before his arrival, the two of us have agreed to try to resolve our differences amicably. Any interested editors are invited to view my proposed version of the lead. The actual proposed text can be found here, but if anyone has any questions about why I feel as I do, please read User:HuskyHuskie/Northern Illinois University (lead section), and post any comments on the talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that it's been about two weeks. That's not a long time on a matter that has been a point of disagreement like this, I merely wanted to note that I'm still patiently waiting for some response. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
And now it's been four weeks. I think I'm going to go ahead and implement my suggested change. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Academics" section

While I don't in principle have any objection to the first section of this article being Academics, I do object to us starting our article with a section that, for all intents and purposes, has no text. All it is is a list of the degrees we offer. It just doesn't look good, and I'm going to move the History section in front of it, at least until Academics has something to read. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just made tremendous improvement in the Academics section, primarily by merging it with the so-called "Rankings" section, which really provided some nice text for the Academics section. I also took off the section headers from Undergrad Degrees, Masters Degrees, et al. because they really created an absurd appearance in the TOC. I still don't favor putting Academics over History, however, because it still has that long list of degrees. So let me ask a question: Is there really a need to list every single degree we offer? BS, BA, MFA, etc, are no different for NIU than 99% of major research universities. The big exception to this might be the J.D.. But I mean, really, all we have here is a list that no one will ever read. I suggest removing the list of degrees, as an unnecessary and unattractive part of the article. Perhaps unusual degrees could be listed in an infobox or something. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Student Life section

This section reads like a college view book. I am under the impression that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT an advertisement beyond what the naked truth would convey. Thus the sentence that reads, "The student-centered staff advises students as they develop specialized academic plans compatible with student educational and life goals," must be removed.

The only problem is that they whole section, possibly the whole article, reads this way. These value statements must go. I'd like this article to gain some attention so I'm flagging the whole thing as an advertisement and adding a citations needed tag about the Student Life section. Let's make this article as neutral and informative—rather than commercial—as any university's Wikipedia article demands to be. (EarnestyEternity (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Rankings

We can certainly have a discussion about how rankings should be portrayed in this article--what should be included and what should be left out. But WP:NPOV requires that, when all is said and done with, we need to have our work not only be accurate, but neutral in tone. A pair of recent edits,[8][9] in my opinion, do not meet this test.

In this edit, the editor provides a textbook example of cherry picking, leaving in the Washington Monthly ranking that he apparently likes because it is very favorable to NIU, but removing the Forbes ranking, which is, in current vernacular, "not so much". In this edit, the editor tries to remove historical context to make NIU appear more favorable. While this year NIU has finally (I've been waiting a long time) reached the third quartile, the fact is, NIU has been in the bottom quartile for decades, and only by virtue of a 9-way tie for last place in the third quartile did we escape it this time. I'm happy about the improvement, but I will not lower myself to such blatant boosterism. We who love NIU do our institution no favors by trying to whitewash its article here.

If I wanted to, I could write an article that describes NIU in nothing but the most glowing terms, but then, who would believe it? We need to show balance in our writing, that is both Wikipedian and fundamentally honest. I am reverting these two edits (but leaving the first; thanks for the insight on the MOS), but am, as always, open to discussion on this page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thus far your actions look all good to me. Has the editor indicated why he/she is removing the sourced material?Moxy (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
From his comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I gather that he feels my version of the article is anti-NIU. I'm hoping that he/she will join in a discussion on this page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
O I see - this is being talked about sort of. As per the this guidelines that say academic rankings may be listed in a template or in paragraph form, but should never be an embedded list. Per WP:BOOSTER (an essay), the rankings should be presented neutrally and without undue weight — do not exclude or re-factor rankings because they are inconveniently low, attempt to include every ranking or all historical rankings, or emphasize rankings of sub-disciplines over rankings of the college or university as a whole. all looks ok here to me its sourced and presents just the facts including some sub-disciplines. That said perhaps there is to much details in the one statement -However, in the most recent 2012 edition, NIU crept into the third quartile, tying with eight other universities for the lowest actual numerical ranking (194) in the survey, but ahead of the unranked fourth quartile. Could this perhaps not stand out as much if we simply say However, in the most recent 2012 edition, NIU was ranked (194) making the third quartile rank.[citation needed]. We have already mentioned in the statement before they were in the fourth quartile so no need to mentioned they have moved up nor its all that relevant that there was a tie with others. I think a simpler sentence with a ref to more info for our readers is all that is needed. This is so the one statement/ranking does not dominated the section. What do you think?Moxy (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent suggestion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to concerns expressed by Tigerwiki2

I am posting this both to User talk:Tigerwiki2 and here; the former because I want to make sure Tigerwiki has a chance to read it, and the latter in the hope that we can kickstart a dialogue. I am going to post statements that Tigerwiki made to User talk:EdJohnston and elsewhere. If someone contests the accuracy of what I am posting, and insists on me leaving diffs, I will do so, but otherwise, I just plan to copy and paste his statements here and make my reply after them.

  • The Forbes "rankings" are not academic rankings (as I've stated in previous entries regarding this case, they are "value rankings" that take into account cost of total attendance at the schools and have no direct correlation to the value of education provided by the school) and should be stricken
Why have you not made this point on the article talk page? If what you say is true, it is something important to bring to the discussion—the discussion to which I have repeatedly invited you, invitations which you have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge. Well, regardless of whether or not you choose to engage in discussions, I will investigate this and consider this. I realize that the fact of your incivility does not preclude the possibility that you are right.
  • If the user feels so strongly about the Forbes listings that he feels the need to include them here . . .
But I don't feel strongly that the Forbes rankings should be included. I'm not the one who put them in there in the NIU article in the first place! I didn't revert your removal of the Forbes rankings because I "felt strongly" about them, I did it because it was sourced information that you removed without explanation. My God, Tigerwiki, we can't read your mind. If you want something removed, let the rest of us know why. You removed that and some other stuff in what looked like raw academic boosterism, which is not allowed.
  • Again regarding the Forbes rankings: why has he not included these Forbes listing in the other University pages that he contributes to, namely ISU and U of I?
A fair question with a very simple answer. Editing NIU (and Illinois) are my passions; ISU and U of I are both edited by me as well, but they aren't as important to me (that's why I have more edits to NIU as those two put together). Until you mentioned that, I didn't know the Forbes rankings were missing from the other two (and even now, I'm just taking your word for it), but frankly, I don't care. I don't care about the Forbes rankings. I also edit SIUC and UIC quite often. I couldn't tell you if the Forbes rankings are in those articles, either. It's just not my thing.
  • User HuskyHuskie has user Moxy to edit war with him.
Simply preposterous. I'd never even heard of User:Moxy until he/she commented on the talk pages regarding this conflict between TigerWiki2 and I.
  • Undue Weight - i.e. "NIU is ranked as a National University by the U.S. News & World Report, where it typically places in the fourth quartile". This entire sentence should be deleted and the section should begin at the next sentence with "In the most recent..."
Now this is another point you bring up that merits discussion. (For the life of me, I don't understand why you've never stated any of this on the article talk page.) Here's my brief explanation of my position (but my position is not carved in granite--I can certainly see two sides of this): I have been waiting decades for us to rise out of the bottom quartile. That we have done so--finally--this year is great, but it may simply be an outlier. The historical trend has been quite consistent: We have been in the bottom fourth. That's just a fact, and what makes the USNWR rankings so much more valuable than most of the others is that they show where a given school stands over time. To ignore our history and just brag on this year strikes me as disingenuous and biased. But again, I understand there are other perspectives, and I invite you to calmly discuss your viewpoint with other editors on the article's talk page.
  • I doubt that this person has real ties to NIU and I believe that their user name/handle is an over-the-top attempt to mask that they are actually from Central Illinois and have ties to U of I, ISU, and the central Illinois area. The connection to Central Illinois and things in that area is clear when looking at the articles they have created as well as the pages they contribute to.
Tigerwiki, most editors at Wikipedia do not just contribute to one or two articles. Have I contributed to articles dealing with Central Illinois? Sure. But I think (I say "think", because I don't track such things) that I have contributed more to articles from Northern Illinois. Look, I grew up in and was educated in Northern Illinois. But some of us actually move out of our parents' houses after graduation. Have you ever considered:
  • how much less seriously one is taken if their post-graduate degrees are from the same university as their bachelor's?
  • that moving further downstate (or out of state, for that matter) might be necessary to accept a job?
  • that one might actually marry someone from another university?
Does living for a few years in Skokie or buying a house in Peoria Heights mean that one can no longer edit articles that herald back to more youthful years? Does marrying someone who went to ISU mean that they can no longer edit NIU? Of course not. But what it does mean is that one learns more about these other places and things, and yes, then one can write about those as well.
And contrary to what you apparently believe, you should know that editors with single purpose accounts are sometimes viewed less favorably than those who maintain "expertise" on only one or two articles. While we all have areas of interest, we grow as Wikipedia editors when we expand our horizons.

I truly hope, Tigerwiki, that you overcome these issues and become a productive editor. I think the first step for you should be to read WP:AGF. When you're finished with that, I hope you'll join us in making this a better encyclopedia. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel I'm partly to blame here, as I put in the Forbes ranking. I was trying to be unbiased and put in every ranking NIU had that was included in Template:Infobox US university ranking. I wouldn't be against removing it, but it is from a RS and is found in hundreds of University pages. But I agree, that in this instance, it does look unfavorable. Iksnyrk (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Forbes ranking

In another venue, an editor has stated his objection to the inclusion of the Forbes ranking, on the grounds that it is not actually an academic ranking. Given the fact that in this article, the various rankings are listed in the "Academics" section, I believe this claim is sufficiently important to warrant investigation. So I went to the Forbes rankings, and this is what I found:

Our annual ranking of the 650 best undergraduate institutions focuses on the things that matter the most to students: quality of teaching, great career prospects, graduation rates and low levels of debt. Unlike other lists, we pointedly ignore ephemeral measures such as school “reputation” and ill-conceived metrics that reward wasteful spending. We try and evaluate the college purchase as a consumer would: Is it worth spending as much as a quarter of a million dollars for this degree?

So is this an academic ranking? I'll break it into pieces

  • quality of teaching
To my mind, this is clearly part of an academic ranking
  • great career prospects
Hmmmmm. I really don't know if this should be counted as part of an "academic ranking" or not.
  • graduation rates
I'm somewhat ambivalent about this as well, but I would lean toward counting this.
  • low levels of debt
Important? Clearly. But part of "academic rankings"? No way.

Then, the rest of their commentary does make it seem like they're more concerned with the economic aspects of sending a kid to a given college than the academic aspects. I don't know what to think about this; I'm going to wait and see what others have to say. But to recap, the question is, "Should the Forbes Top Colleges rankings be included in this article, and if so, under what section?" What are the thoughts of other editors? HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Tigerwiki2's most recent edits to NIU

With this edit, Tigerwiki2 states, Replaced the POV language used with neutral language. DO NOT REMOVE without OFFICIAL REVIEW. I'm not sure if Tigerwiki really understands what he or she is asking for with this odd language (I'm guessing this will be a redlink: WP:OFFICIAL REVIEW), but given that it has been roughly six months since the kind editor has been blocked for his behavior here earlier, I'm going to assume that this time he has taken the time to investigate policies and has also learned to display good faith. Despite this, the above edit is problematic:

  • Tigerwiki has himself actually replaced neutral language with POV boosterism. My guess is that this is because the good editor does not recognize that "neutral" language is not always promotional. He appears to think that any material which does not make NIU look perfect is biased.
  • There is a clear factual error in the rankings placed in the above edit, which I shall get to later.

Now, while of course I'm tempted to revert, I'm instead going to take a bit of a timeout now. I hope to accomplish two goals by not editing the article for a stay:

  1. I hope to avoid having Tigerwiki blocked again. I hope that Tigerwiki will take this opportunity, the same opportunity that he blatantly refused to take last time, to calmly discuss our differences of opinion, either here on the NIU talk page, or on either of our talk pages, if he does not want to do so here (I tried both places--several times--last time, and was consistently rebuffed, ultimately resulting in Tigerwiki's being blocked).
  2. I also want to review the data, because such things are always being updated, and to make sure that no one is cherry picking in an attempt to provide a pro-NIU POV or an anti-NIU POV. I don't really have time to do this right now, so Tigerwiki's version can stand for at least a while, but this break in no way indicates that I endorse Tigerwiki's POV editing, nor any possible errors (including the mistake claiming that NIU is the second highest ranked university in the state). HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: I see that the specific error I referenced in the above comment has now been corrected. More review to come later. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New Rankings

USN News rankings--which, like other college rankings, are bullshit--are still the most recognized college rankings out there. But we need to realize that they do, not infrequently, change their methodology and terminology. This year is no different. Whereas in the past they had a four-tier system, and later a bizarre two-tier system (in which the top tier consisted of fully 75% of the colleges), they are no longer using "tiers". That word appears no where on their website in reference to "National Universities". We've had someone (again) make unwarranted assumptions, and (again) I'm going to have to correct things. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

School Official Colors

(transcluded from another talk page)

The University's official colors are cardinal (red) and black. There is also this: http://www.niuhuskies.com/trads/niu-trads.html "Note to graphic artists and printers: The NIU CARDINAL red is Pantone Matching System 1935." I corrected the change to the "Colors" section and referenced the link above in the new footnote, as it is much clearer. -- ForwardNIU (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

School Official Motto

(transcluded from another talk page)

"Forward, Together Forward" is the Official University Motto. LTLT is/was some optional add-on tag slogan to the logo redesign back in 2011. YFOF may be the new LTLT but neither is the Official University Motto. That remains "Forward, Together Forward." "Forward, Together Forward" appears on Memorials to the victims of the 2008 incident because it is the University's motto not the other way around. The scholarships set up in honor of the victims also takes its name from the Official University Motto (FTF) as do many other tributes, sayings, nicknames, etc. -- ForwardNIU (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with "Forward, Together Forward" (taken from the Huskie Fight Song written in 1961), and I remember it being adopted extensively in connection with the 2008 memorial events. If you search online, you'll find that there is no sourcing to indicate it is the school's official motto. The available cites do mention the "motto" or "tagline" (depending on the source) becoming "Learning Today, Leading Tomorrow" as of 2011, then in Fall 2014 the tagline became "Your Future, Our Focus." Since I couldn't find anything else online indicating what the official motto of the university is, and because this situation piqued my curiosity, I called NIU's Media and Public Relations department and put the question to the test. Their answer: there has never been an "official motto" at NIU. Some schools have official mottos and other's don't. "Forward, Together Forward", "Learning Today, Leading Tomorrow," and "Your Future, Our Focus" have each served or current serve particular purposes for NIU and the community, and can be thought of as taglines, phrases, and unofficial mottos. However, none of them correctly fit the Wikipedia infobox template at hand. As a result, I'm thinking we should probably enter a hidden comment accordingly and blank the field. I'll take that action as a preliminary step, then wait for other editors here to register their thoughts and opinions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If AzureCitizen called the Media and Public Relations Dept. and that is what they said, then I agree with AzureCitizen — the field should be left blank with the hidden comment. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northern Illinois University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Northern Illinois University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Northern Illinois University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert information about lawsuit filed by former student

ADHDestabilization has begun an edit war with multiple editors to insert information about a lawsuit recently filed by a former student. Given the scope of this article - it has to cover the entire organization, academic offerings, funding, history, and accomplishments and challenges of a large, complete institution that is 125 years old - we have to be very selective about what we include in it. A newly filed lawsuit from one former student (who is representing herself) is not something we should include - WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS are the most relevant policies - unless there is significant and extraordinary media coverage that establishes that this is very meaningful in the larger history of the institution. ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Forbes America's Top Colleges List 2023". Forbes. Retrieved September 22, 2023.
  2. ^ "2023 National University Rankings". Washington Monthly. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Illinois_University/Archive_2&oldid=1170899132"